Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer ridiculed Google's browser-based PC operating system which is slated for shipment next year, using a tone remarkably similar to that used to blow off the potential of the iPhone two years ago.

In a speech followed by a question session in front of the Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference audience, Ballmer said, "to me the Chrome OS thing is highly interesting," but remarked that "it won't happen for a year and a half and they already announced an operating system," speaking of Google's Android.

Android, first officially announced four months after the original iPhone went on sale, is a conventional smartphone operating system based on the Linux kernel and using a Java Virtual Machine-like runtime for building applications. The company has floated plans to enable hardware makers to build not just Android smartphones, but also Android-based netbooks and other devices.

Google's recently announced Chrome OS also targets the netbook market. However, rather than being a general purpose, conventional desktop operating system, Chrome OS appears to simply be Google's Chrome browser running with the minimum software below it, which is also based on the Linux kernel.

This would restrict devices using the new system to running HTML 5 applications, similar to the WebOS Palm developed for the Palm Pre, but with nothing tying applications to the platform itself; in other words, the Chrome OS wouldn't run special "Chrome web applets" like the Pre but full blown web apps that can also run in any other standards-compliant browser, from Safari to Firefox to the iPhone.

Two client operating systems?

Taking aim at Google's new strategy, Ballmer told the crowd, "I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there, but the last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems. It's good to have one."

Ballmer may have intended to be speaking from experience about Microsoft's travails in trying to push its DOS-based Windows 95/98/Me users to its NT-based operating system, a struggle that began in 1993 when the company debuted Windows NT 3.1 with a version number that made it the heir apparent to 1990's Windows 3.0 and an early precursor of Bill Gates' promises of an advanced, object-oriented post-NT Cairo operating system that could rival Steve Jobs' futuristic NeXTSTEP.

Instead, Windows NT 3.1 ended up only suitable for use on servers and high end workstations, leaving Microsoft to continue work on the interim, DOS-based Windows 3.1 and 3.11, released at the end of 1993. Two years later, NT still wasn't ready for the mass market, resulting in the DOS-based Windows 95. Another two years later, Windows 98 appeared, followed by 98 SE and then Windows Millennium Edition, the DOS-based doppleganger to the NT-based Windows 2000 which was still only recommended for business users and servers.

It wasn't until 2001 that Microsoft finally released a client PC operating system based on its NT kernel to the mainstream consumer audience: Windows XP. However, the eight years of struggle toward NT seems like a cakewalk compared to the last eight years of Microsoft's attempts to move Windows XP users toward a more modern operating system with advanced graphics compositing and well designed, object oriented frameworks more like Mac OS X. Microsoft is still struggling to promote adoption of Windows Vista and Windows 7 in a PC world dominated by users who prefer Windows XP.

Microsoft is still selling dual operating systems

Despite all that history behind the company, Ballmer's more curious logical leap stems from the fact that Microsoft's smartphone operating system most comparable to Android, called Windows Mobile, is based upon Windows CE, which uses an entirely different kernel than the company's NT-based desktop operating systems. The only direct commonality between the two is that both use the same brand name.

If Ballmer was ignoring the kernel (both Android and Chrome OS will use the same Linux kernel under the surface) and directing his "two client operating system" attack upon the fact that Android and Chrome OS will be different development platforms, then another fact floats to the surface: the Windows Mobile platform is not at all compatible with the Windows XP/Vista/7 desktop platform. Most Windows Mobile software is still written in Win32, whereas Microsoft is working to push desktop and web developers to .NET (it's also hopeful of moving Windows Mobile developers there, but there's less new interest); these two development platforms are somewhat comparable to Apple's classic Mac OS APIs and the company's more modern Cocoa APIs used in Mac OS X.

However Ballmer would like to slice it, there's no way to say that his company has a cohesive platform that bridges mobile devices and the PC desktop. Instead, the company's powerful desktop operating system monopoly has done next to nothing to advance Windows Mobile over the last ten years.

Instead, Microsoft has lost its share of the smartphone market, from a high of 24% in 2004 to today's 12% (according to Q4 2008 figures published by Gartner). RIM has a 19% share and Apple took a nearly 11% share in just a year and a half of trying. Android has yet to register as a significant blip in the smartphone market, but its launch was targeted directly at neutralizing Windows Mobile. Rather than building an integrated phone like the BlackBerry, Palm Pre, or iPhone, Google set out to counter Microsoft's general purpose operating system that any manufacturer could license.

Google takes on Microsoft in the OS business

Without waiting for Android to take off as a Windows Mobile substitute, Google has announced Chrome OS as a new, free offering for netbook manufacturers that will enable them to sell their hardware without a Windows license, just like Android in the smartphone market.

When asked if Microsoft needed to follow the same strategy, Ballmer answered, "We don't need a new operating system. What we do need to do is to continue to evolve Windows, Windows Applications, IE [Internet Explorer], the way IE works in totality with Windows, and how we build applications like Office."

Part of that strategy involves floating a web-based version of Office to defend Microsoft's productivity suite from encroachment by Google's web-based Docs. Google is also hitting at IE with its Chrome browser, in tandem with Mozilla's Firefox and Apple's Safari, all three of which are working to support HTML 5, a standard Microsoft is currently betting against in its efforts to resist further erosion of the company's control over the web with IE and the company's Flash-like Silverlight plugin that replaces open web documents with a proprietary, closed binary.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you

However, Microsoft's active IE browser share is shrinking dramatically on the desktop, from near totality just a few years ago to something closer to 60% despite being bundled with every new Windows PC sold worldwide. That makes Microsoft's ability to hold up progress on new interoperable standards much more difficult.

Among mobile devices, Pocket IE's flouting of web standards is simply irrelevant, with HTML 5 proponent Apple now owning more than half of all mobile web traffic in Mobile Safari, and many other smartphone platforms, including Android, BlackBerry, and Palm also adopting a WebKit-based browser.

Google's Chrome OS will leverage its WebKit commonality with these mobile devices to expand the number of platforms reachable by HTML 5, making it a common denominator in reaching a wide variety of clients. The history of computing shows that usable common denominators have a powerful effect in marginalizing smaller alternative platforms.

The widespread use of IBM PCs enabled DOS to eradicate a variety of alternatives for booting desktop PCs. Windows killed off the market for alternative graphical systems due to its ubiquitous use on desktop PCs. The web killed off proprietary dial-up services despite Microsoft's attempts to leverage its monopoly to promote MSN. The iPod's use of MPEG MP3/AAC standards killed off Microsoft's ability to push its own Windows Media Audio format.

Microsoft's other anti-mainstream positions have also failed to gain traction, from the AAF media container to its Windows Media Video codecs to its HD-DVD format. Eight years of technologies associated with Vista have also failed to set the pace in market that Microsoft itself monopolizes, making it evident that the dual-platform crisis that Ballmer wishes upon Google is really more of a problem for Microsoft itself.

Then they fight you, then you win

There's also no shortage of irony in Ballmer's laughing off a rival product announcement after the embarrassment Ballmer suffered in claiming that Apple would never amount to more than 2-3% of the market with the iPhone, and that the new device was the most expensive phone in the world despite the fact Microsoft's primary partner was already selling more expensive Windows Mobile phones than the iPhone.

Ballmer's company is now scrambling to catch up with the success of last year's iPhone 2.0 App Store, promising a mobile store of its own toward the end of the year. The problem for Microsoft is that its store will only support Windows Mobile 6 or later devices, which already represents a smaller installed base than the iPhone and iPod touch.

Further, Microsoft's efforts to peddle software to Windows Mobile users will be stymied by rival efforts by manufacturers and mobile carriers. LG is already trying to market software to its own phone users, some of which are based on Windows Mobile, and Verizon Wireless has insisted that it will attempt to control sales of mobile software to its subscribers. That slashes in half the readily reachable market Microsoft has available to it in the US, which is by far the largest market for Windows Mobile phones.

The move to mobile

Ballmer no longer laughs at the iPhone. Next year, he may also need to reevaluate his impression of the threat Chrome OS will have in pushing an HTML 5 platform of web apps on low end netbooks. Earlier this year, Microsoft's position was that Windows-based netbooks only needed to run three apps concurrently because they're only used for basic text entry, browsing, and other simple functions.

If users can get what they want from a web-based netbook without Windows, the desktop market for low end Windows PCs will only continue to implode as cheap netbooks replace low end Windows PCs with open source appliances capable of running anyone's web applications.

That's good news for Apple's iPhone and iPod touch, which are also HTML 5 savvy, as well as the emerging crop of WebKit-based smartphones with screens large enough to interact with web applications. But its the biggest challenge yet for Microsoft's heavyweight desktop PC operating system, which is sold in large volumes across low end hardware. Losing any significant portion of its existing Windows PC base will be disastrous for Microsoft's monopoly business model.

That, in turn, will force Microsoft to choose whether to release a simple web-based operating system of its own for light duty, low end machines in a battle with Google's free Chrome OS offering, or to attempt to upscale the Windows PC back into the high end consumer/prosumer market Apple has established for the Macintosh, something that HP, Dell, and Acer have been unable to do as the bottom drops out of the conventional PC market. Or attempt to take on a war with two fronts.

Microsoft could also take on Apple in delivering its own higher-end mobile device, although the company is late to the gate. Sources within Microsoft report that the launch of the iPhone 3GS blew Microsoft's own internal plans out of the water. "I read the specs on the iPhone 3G S," one Microsoft developer recent wrote, "and realized it has already surpassed the thing we're trying to do that won't ship for a large number of months."

Yea he laughed off all the good products that have been launched in previous years. I say that Bill did not make the right choice in making this guy the boss. Microsoft is losing in desktop, phone, search and music and entertainment business. Really all they still control are the office suite and games for windows, along with a decent product that is xbox 360 (aside from rings of death on the early models).

He's laughing because he know just like he can't buy out Apple, he can't buy out Google and end the threat of the competition. Microsoft is to busy trying to fix Vista and figure out how they can milk Office 2009/2010/2011.

Maybe this will be a great OS and maybe it won't but, IMO...this is the problem with Microsoft. They think they're on top of the world and nothing can beat them. This is exactly how people/companies fail! They keep progressing slowly, doing just enough to say they did something while others are advancing their technologies significantly. It seems like he would eventually learn that Microsoft should be innovating...not sitting back and watching and then trying to copy what works. This eventually will bite them in the ass. It kind of already did with Windows Vista.

Someday maybe Microsoft investors will can his ass. As much as we all like to pick on Microsoft it would be nice to actually see them innovate now and then.

Microsoft's CEO Steve Ballmer ridiculed Google's browser-based PC operating system which is slated for shipment next year, using a tone remarkably similar to that used to blow off the potential of the iPhone two years ago.

In a speech followed by a question session in front of the Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference audience, Ballmer said, "to me the Chrome OS thing is highly interesting," but remarked that "it won't happen for a year and a half and they already announced an operating system," speaking of Google's Android.

Android, first officially announced four months after the original iPhone went on sale, is a conventional smartphone operating system based on the Linux kernel and using a Java Virtual Machine-like runtime for building applications. The company has floated plans to enable hardware makers to build not just Android smartphones, but also Android-based netbooks and other devices.

Google's recently announced Chrome OS also targets the netbook market. However, rather than being a general purpose, conventional desktop operating system, Chrome OS appears to simply be Google's Chrome browser running with the minimum software below it, which is also based on the Linux kernel.

This would restrict devices using the new system to running HTML 5 applications, similar to the WebOS Palm developed for the Palm Pre, but with nothing tying applications to the platform itself; in other words, the Chrome OS wouldn't run special "Chrome web applets" like the Pre but full blown web apps that can also run in any other standards-compliant browser, from Safari to Firefox to the iPhone.

Two client operating systems?

Taking aim at Google's new strategy, Ballmer told the crowd, "I don't know if they can't make up their mind or what the problem is over there, but the last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems. It's good to have one."

Ballmer may have intended to be speaking from experience about Microsoft's travails in trying to push its DOS-based Windows 95/98/Me users to its NT-based operating system, a struggle that began in 1993 when the company debuted Windows NT 3.1 with a version number that made it the heir apparent to 1990's Windows 3.0 and an early precursor of Bill Gates' promises of an advanced, object-oriented post-NT Cairo operating system that could rival Steve Jobs' futuristic NeXTSTEP.

Instead, Windows NT 3.1 ended up only suitable for use on servers and high end workstations, leaving Microsoft to continue work on the interim, DOS-based Windows 3.1 and 3.11, released at the end of 1993. Two years later, NT still wasn't ready for the mass market, resulting in the DOS-based Windows 95. Another two years later, Windows 98 appeared, followed by 98 SE and then Windows Millennium Edition, the DOS-based doppleganger to the NT-based Windows 2000 which was still only recommended for business users and servers.

It wasn't until 2001 that Microsoft finally released a client PC operating system based on its NT kernel to the mainstream consumer audience: Windows XP. However, the eight years of struggle toward NT seems like a cakewalk compared to the last eight years of Microsoft's attempts to move Windows XP users toward a more modern operating system with advanced graphics compositing and well designed, object oriented frameworks more like Mac OS X. Microsoft is still struggling to promote adoption of Windows Vista and Windows 7 in a PC world dominated by users who prefer Windows XP.

Microsoft is still selling dual operating systems

Despite all that history behind the company, Ballmer's more curious logical leap stems from the fact that Microsoft's smartphone operating system most comparable to Android, called Windows Mobile, is based upon Windows CE, which uses an entirely different kernel than the company's NT-based desktop operating systems. The only direct commonality between the two is that both use the same brand name.

If Ballmer was ignoring the kernel (both Android and Chrome OS will use the same Linux kernel under the surface) and directing his "two client operating system" attack upon the fact that Android and Chrome OS will be different development platforms, then another fact floats to the surface: the Windows Mobile platform is not at all compatible with the Windows XP/Vista/7 desktop platform. Most Windows Mobile software is still written in Win32, whereas Microsoft is working to push desktop and web developers to .NET (it's also hopeful of moving Windows Mobile developers there, but there's less new interest); these two development platforms are somewhat comparable to Apple's classic Mac OS APIs and the company's more modern Cocoa APIs used in Mac OS X.

However Ballmer would like to slice it, there's no way to say that his company has a cohesive platform that bridges mobile devices and the PC desktop. Instead, the company's powerful desktop operating system monopoly has done next to nothing to advance Windows Mobile over the last ten years.

Instead, Microsoft has lost its share of the smartphone market, from a high of 24% in 2004 to today's 12% (according to Q4 2008 figures published by Gartner). RIM has a 19% share and Apple took a nearly 11% share in just a year and a half of trying. Android has yet to register as a significant blip in the smartphone market, but its launch was targeted directly at neutralizing Windows Mobile. Rather than building an integrated phone like the BlackBerry, Palm Pre, or iPhone, Google set out to counter Microsoft's general purpose operating system that any manufacturer could license.

Google takes on Microsoft in the OS business

Without waiting for Android to take off as a Windows Mobile substitute, Google has announced Chrome OS as a new, free offering for netbook manufacturers that will enable them to sell their hardware without a Windows license, just like Android in the smartphone market.

When asked if Microsoft needed to follow the same strategy, Ballmer answered, "We don't need a new operating system. What we do need to do is to continue to evolve Windows, Windows Applications, IE [Internet Explorer], the way IE works in totality with Windows, and how we build applications like Office."

Part of that strategy involves floating a web-based version of Office to defend Microsoft's productivity suite from encroachment by Google's web-based Docs. Google is also hitting at IE with its Chrome browser, in tandem with Mozilla's Firefox and Apple's Safari, all three of which are working to support HTML 5, a standard Microsoft is currently betting against in its efforts to resist further erosion of the company's control over the web with IE and the company's Flash-like Silverlight plugin that replaces open web documents with a proprietary, closed binary.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you

However, Microsoft's active IE browser share is shrinking dramatically on the desktop, from near totality just a few years ago to something closer to 60% despite being bundled with every new Windows PC sold worldwide. That makes Microsoft's ability to hold up progress on new interoperable standards much more difficult.

Among mobile devices, Pocket IE's flouting of web standards is simply irrelevant, with HTML 5 proponent Apple now owning more than half of all mobile web traffic in Mobile Safari, and many other smartphone platforms, including Android, BlackBerry, and Palm also adopting a WebKit-based browser.

Google's Chrome OS will leverage its WebKit commonality with these mobile devices to expand the number of platforms reachable by HTML 5, making it a common denominator in reaching a wide variety of clients. The history of computing shows that usable common denominators have a powerful effect in marginalizing smaller alternative platforms.

The widespread use of IBM PCs enabled DOS to eradicate a variety of alternatives for booting desktop PCs. Windows killed off the market for alternative graphical systems due to its ubiquitous use on desktop PCs. The web killed off proprietary dial-up services despite Microsoft's attempts to leverage its monopoly to promote MSN. The iPod's use of MPEG MP3/AAC standards killed off Microsoft's ability to push its own Windows Media Audio format.

Microsoft's other anti-mainstream positions have also failed to gain traction, from the AAF media container to its Windows Media Video codecs to its HD-DVD format. Eight years of technologies associated with Vista have also failed to set the pace in market that Microsoft itself monopolizes, making it evident that the dual-platform crisis that Ballmer wishes upon Google is really more of a problem for Microsoft itself.

Then they fight you, then you win

There's also no shortage of irony in Ballmer's laughing off a rival product announcement after the embarrassment Ballmer suffered in claiming that Apple would never amount to more than 2-3% of the market with the iPhone, and that the new device was the most expensive phone in the world despite the fact Microsoft's primary partner was already selling more expensive Windows Mobile phones than the iPhone.

Ballmer's company is now scrambling to catch up with the success of last year's iPhone 2.0 App Store, promising a mobile store of its own toward the end of the year. The problem for Microsoft is that its store will only support Windows Mobile 6 or later devices, which already represents a smaller installed base than the iPhone and iPod touch.

Further, Microsoft's efforts to peddle software to Windows Mobile users will be stymied by rival efforts by manufacturers and mobile carriers. LG is already trying to market software to its own phone users, some of which are based on Windows Mobile, and Verizon Wireless has insisted that it will attempt to control sales of mobile software to its subscribers. That slashes in half the readily reachable market Microsoft has available to it in the US, which is by far the largest market for Windows Mobile phones.

The move to mobile

Ballmer no longer laughs at the iPhone. Next year, he may also need to reevaluate his impression of the threat Chrome OS will have in pushing an HTML 5 platform of web apps on low end netbooks. Earlier this year, Microsoft's position was that Windows-based netbooks only needed to run three apps concurrently because they're only used for basic text entry, browsing, and other simple functions.

If users can get what they want from a web-based netbook without Windows, the desktop market for low end Windows PCs will only continue to implode as cheap netbooks replace low end Windows PCs with open source appliances capable of running anyone's web applications.

That's good news for Apple's iPhone and iPod touch, which are also HTML 5 savvy, as well as the emerging crop of WebKit-based smartphones with screens large enough to interact with web applications. But its the biggest challenge yet for Microsoft's heavyweight desktop PC operating system, which is sold in large volumes across low end hardware. Losing any significant portion of its existing Windows PC base will be disastrous for Microsoft's monopoly business model.

That, in turn, will force Microsoft to choose whether to release a simple web-based operating system of its own for light duty, low end machines in a battle with Google's free Chrome OS offering, or to attempt to upscale the Windows PC back into the high end consumer/prosumer market Apple has established for the Macintosh, something that HP, Dell, and Acer have been unable to do as the bottom drops out of the conventional PC market. Or attempt to take on a war with two fronts.

Microsoft could also take on Apple in delivering its own higher-end mobile device, although the company is late to the gate. Sources within Microsoft report that the launch of the iPhone 3GS blew Microsoft's own internal plans out of the water. "I read the specs on the iPhone 3G S," one Microsoft developer recent wrote, "and realized it has already surpassed the thing we're trying to do that won't ship for a large number of months."

Microshit should either accept and move on with Chrome OS or Chrome OS will take Microshit by storm. All it takes is a stable distribution with the applications necessary to run the day to day work. Those things do exist in Linux community for a long time - but people are just used to the Windows and the enterprise and sales guys like to pay money for the services and solutions. A desktop with a Linux distribution and an office suite can be easily realized with $0 in software cost. But if it were a Microshit solution - it would cost the enterprise a per seat cost of anywhere between $300~$500. The sharepoint and outlook and Windows Servers take away money in big quantum when a equivalent MacOS server or a Linux server will be a bargain. (CALs cost big money)

Google being a leader in search and online advertisement - can easily educate and encourage the users. It can create additional pull factors for the people to move on to the Linux world.

It's interesting how much of a push MS is making with Azure on one side, and poo-pooing Chrome OS on the other. To be honest, I think Apple has the most to lose with cloud computing pushing closer to mainstream. MS is trying to undercut Amazon's prices, which should suggest that they take the market very seriously.

I wonder how long it will take MS to create a browser based OS themselves...

Google has one HUGE obsticle though... More than 40-60% (don't have the exact figure, don't feel like looking it up but it's HIGH) linux Netbooks were returned.

Of the remaining FEW linux machines out there after 3 months less than half of them had linux still installed.

So are the manufactures gonna give linux another shot? With netbook sales now over 40mil annually worldwide? Imagine HP offering a knock down 4gb SSD, 512mb, N280 10" system for $199 with Google OS. Ok you can't get that even today with linux but you get the point.

You see why Mr. Sweaty pits is laughing is because, and I kinda hope this rumor is true, Win 7 Starter edition will be made available as a free upgrade to those running WinME->WinVista Basic. So... OEM's are already only paying $15/oem XP Home license to MS when purchased in large quantity's. Why would an OEM offer Linux up to save $15 and possibly cost them more than that in returns. The estimated Win 7 starter edition which is designed for netbooks and YES I have played with it on an Atom N280 based one as well as the now-defunct Everex Cloudbook Via C7-M 1.2ghz machine... It's better than XP and better than Vista and better than linux... Especially since Linux kernel driver for the RTL8187 is awful. Not too many soccer moms know how to work NDISWrapper.

So yea he's a **** but in the netbook realm they OWN IT right now. Hate to say it but they do.

(Dark Helmet voice) There's only one man who would dare crush the laugh of the ballmer...[/quote]

So yea he's a ***** but in the netbook realm they OWN IT right now. Hate to say it but they do.

You are absolutely right. Windows owns the netbook market. But its a market that won't grow. The hardware sucks. The future will be tablet based mobile internet devices. iPod Touches and larger devices. Thats where Google wants to put Chrome in my opinion.

IBM's Power servers topped a list of most reliable x86 and Unix machines in a new survey, clocking in at only 15 minutes of unplanned downtime per year. Linux distributions running on x86 servers also performed well, as did Sun's Sparc machines and HP's Unix boxes. Windows Server machines performed worse than most competitors, with two to three hours of downtime per year, but have still improved dramatically over previous surveys.

That's much worse than Mac OS X on G4s:
Apple's G4 Mac servers with the Mac OS X operating system came in sixth with 37.8 minutes downtime.

>>>>>>

The next-worst were Windows Server 2003 on Intel-based hardware (three hours of downtime) and Windows Server 2008 (nearly two and a half hours downtime). But Windows Server systems also posted the biggest improvement, with a 35% reduction in downtime since 2008.

You are absolutely right. Windows owns the netbook market. But its a market that won't grow. The hardware sucks. The future will be tablet based mobile internet devices. iPod Touches and larger devices. Thats where Google wants to put Chrome in my opinion.

Gonna be a tough nut to crack, linux on a tablet. Apple got it right and to date are still the only ones to get a tablet let alone a touch screen right. The kindle is good... And with a browser and color screen would do what Google aims to accomplish.

IBM's Power servers topped a list of most reliable x86 and Unix machines in a new survey, clocking in at only 15 minutes of unplanned downtime per year. Linux distributions running on x86 servers also performed well, as did Sun's Sparc machines and HP's Unix boxes. Windows Server machines performed worse than most competitors, with two to three hours of downtime per year, but have still improved dramatically over previous surveys.

That's much worse than Mac OS X on G4s:
Apple's G4 Mac servers with the Mac OS X operating system came in sixth with 37.8 minutes downtime.

>>>>>>

The next-worst were Windows Server 2003 on Intel-based hardware (three hours of downtime) and Windows Server 2008 (nearly two and a half hours downtime). But Windows Server systems also posted the biggest improvement, with a 35% reduction in downtime since 2008.

I think that whether his comments end up to be true or not is not the point. The point is, Balmer makes himself look like a clown and does his company a disservice by even acknowledging Google's plans; as if he's legitimizing their work. It would be far more professional of him to remind silent for the time being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh

MS is trying to undercut Amazon's prices, which should suggest that they take the market very seriously.

Isn't this how Microsoft always 'competes'? They compete by providing their product or service at cutrate prices (or for nothing) until the competition disappears. Nevermind that they do this with third-rate products that would never compete on merit alone.

When you are getting billions of dollars every month without actually trying to improve your product, you can afford to laugh at anyone who is doing anything new.

I see the day when children searching the internet on their Apple mobile gadgets, using Google will be asking themselves this question; " Dad what is Microsoft? "

Yes I see the day. It may take decades but it will happen. Just like RCA, Polaroid, GM(?), and so it will be with Microsoft. History is full of giants who refuse to adopt to changes. And today we know them as dinosaurs.

Google has one HUGE obsticle though... More than 40-60% (don't have the exact figure, don't feel like looking it up but it's HIGH) linux Netbooks were returned.

Of the remaining FEW linux machines out there after 3 months less than half of them had linux still installed.

So are the manufactures gonna give linux another shot? With netbook sales now over 40mil annually worldwide? Imagine HP offering a knock down 4gb SSD, 512mb, N280 10" system for $199 with Google OS. Ok you can't get that even today with linux but you get the point.

You see why Mr. Sweaty pits is laughing is because, and I kinda hope this rumor is true, Win 7 Starter edition will be made available as a free upgrade to those running WinME->WinVista Basic. So... OEM's are already only paying $15/oem XP Home license to MS when purchased in large quantity's. Why would an OEM offer Linux up to save $15 and possibly cost them more than that in returns. The estimated Win 7 starter edition which is designed for netbooks and YES I have played with it on an Atom N280 based one as well as the now-defunct Everex Cloudbook Via C7-M 1.2ghz machine... It's better than XP and better than Vista and better than linux... Especially since Linux kernel driver for the RTL8187 is awful. Not too many soccer moms know how to work NDISWrapper.

So yea he's a prick but in the netbook realm they OWN IT right now. Hate to say it but they do.

(Dark Helmet voice) There's only one man who would dare crush the laugh of the ballmer...

Because Google is putting their name on it, it will push sales. The only thing the average Joe knows how to use is the browser. Since the OS is based around the browser it would be an advantage. Chances are it will be a lot more stable and better driver support than Ubuntu.

Google and Apple is forcing Microsoft to play on their own terms. There is no way Microsoft can compete with free because Windows is a direct source of proft and Apple rules the high end market.

Microsoft looks like a company that is slowly dying. It reminds me of Sony. They are trying to do a thousand different things in which they become good at nothing while their competitors are attacking their core business. Google is going right after Windows. What is Microsoft doing? They announce that they are going to copy Spotify even though they don't know how they're going to do it.

Google has one HUGE obsticle though... More than 40-60% (don't have the exact figure, don't feel like looking it up but it's HIGH) linux Netbooks were returned.

Of the remaining FEW linux machines out there after 3 months less than half of them had linux still installed.

So are the manufactures gonna give linux another shot?

Consumers return Linux machines because they are a complex amalgam of X Window/Gnome or KDE with millions of choices for users to pick from and sort out. Making web-based netbooks that only worked as a browser, yet could run local browser apps to do anything from media playback to writing to basic HTML 5 games would result in a different class of computer.

That's clearly what Google is targeting, and it makes sense. Far more sense than giving consumers a desktop that looks like Windows but is really Linux under the hood.

Windows Mobile users look at the iPhone and say "wheres the file browser and task manager?"
I think Google looked at the iPhone and said, "hey, a solution-oriented web OS makes far more sense than trying to scale Android up and establish it across both mobiles and netbook-style PCs."

Android has taken off REALLY slowly in the phone market. Is Google going to float it on netbooks any faster? Why not shove Chrome and HTML 5 into the mainstream and let the company focus its efforts on web apps, something Google actually has experience with, rather than a desktop platform that the company has no experience pulling off.

MS is not in touch with reality. My older brother is your less than average PC user and he was complaining yesterday about IE and how he love Chrome speed (Personally I prefer Safari since I use Mac). Microsoft is sinking ship and they will start losing market share slowly as many younger users and IT graduate start using the newer and alternative software technologies.
Chrome OS might not be a hit when it is released but all Google need to do is keep moving forward and they will start gaining market share. Google is the only one with the resources to do that.

Sergey Brin should just kick his ass. Just walk up to him, and be straight up, "What you sayin' 'bout Chrome OS ****?!? I already heard!" and drop him. Pow- one hit- Sergey's fist- his face- his face- the floor.

Then Sergey be like, "Do no evil? **** And then he rollerblade on out of there.

That is an extremely unlikely string of events, but I do have to admit I would digg it.

Because Google is putting their name on it, it will push sales. The only thing the average Joe knows how to use is the browser. Since the OS is based around the browser it would be an advantage. Chances are it will be a lot more stable and better driver support than Ubuntu.

Google and Apple is forcing Microsoft to play on their own terms. There is no way Microsoft can compete with free because Windows is a direct source of proft and Apple rules the high end market.

Microsoft looks like a company that is slowly dying. It reminds me of Sony. They are trying to do a thousand different things in which they become good at nothing while their competitors are attacking their core business. Google is going right after Windows. What is Microsoft doing? They announce that they are going to copy Spotify even though they don't know how they're going to do it.

People want to run standard i.e. Windows, apps, which is why Linux netbooks were such a failure. People would get them home only to find they couldn't install Office or other apps they used.

Those buying netbooks look at them as smaller, cheaper laptops, when they are not really.

But putting Google's name on what is basically a Linux OS that doesn't run standard apps will still have a lot of resistance.

Apple could get a way with it because it also has those standard apps with many more f its own.

"Their copied office suite seems to do well too. 5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from." - xwiredtva

I have seen a few responses to your 5 point challenge... but I would love to know this, as I have always been a little curious on how Office became a monopoly and what it "borrowed" from, or perhaps stole from, with regards to market share, code, intellectual property, ideas, whatever.
I don't use office a great deal except for Word (only because I have to at work), but find it remarkable they can even charge for most if not all of it. I remember VisiCalc back in the day of the Apple II and how revolutionary that was as well as a cool word processor software package whose name escapes me, but I just don't remember ever having seen anything remarkable about the software that makes up Office. Sure it's useful, but it's hardly groundbreaking or interesting, and others do the same for less or free.
So, could please reveal the answers, and direct me to any good articles or links that may enlighten me on how MS Office came to rule the world, and the software companies and packages it borrowed, bought or stole from. It's not really my area of expertise or interest normally, but you have got me interested! And I would love to know more. Cheers.

People want to run standard i.e. Windows, apps, which is why Linux netbooks were such a failure. People would get them home only to find they couldn't install Office or other apps they used.

Those buying netbooks look at them as smaller, cheaper laptops, when they are not really.

But putting Google's name on what is basically a Linux OS that doesn't run standard apps will still have a lot of resistance.

Apple could get a way with it because it also has those standard apps with many more f its own.

But I'm skeptical about Chrome so far.

Fair enough but there are other options for something like Office. Google Docs, Zoho, and Microsoft OWA are all viable solutions. Microsoft already said they're working on Chrome support which shouldn't be too hard since they've already tested for Safari. The average person doesn't even use 99% of the features anywhere though there will be that initial nervousness from moving to something that you're not accustomed to.

It's easy to be skeptical about Chrome since it's vaporware. But Google has done a decent enough job with the products they've come out with. They may not be Mac caliber but it is as good as, if not better, than Windows products and free as well.

"Their copied office suite seems to do well too. 5 points to anyone who can name where all 5 legs of the Office suite originally came from." - xwiredtva

I have seen a few responses to your 5 point challenge... but I would love to know this, as I have always been a little curious on how Office became a monopoly and what it "borrowed" from, or perhaps stole from, with regards to market share, code, intellectual property, ideas, whatever.
I don't use office a great deal except for Word (only because I have to at work), but find it remarkable they can even charge for most if not all of it. I remember VisiCalc back in the day of the Apple II and how revolutionary that was as well as a cool word processor software package whose name escapes me, but I just don't remember ever having seen anything remarkable about the software that makes up Office. Sure it's useful, but it's hardly groundbreaking or interesting, and others do the same for less or free.
So, could please reveal the answers, and direct me to any good articles or links that may enlighten me on how MS Office came to rule the world, and the software companies and packages it borrowed, bought or stole from. It's not really my area of expertise or interest normally, but you have got me interested! And I would love to know more. Cheers.

All I can recall about it was that most of the programs were written for the Macintosh long before they ever appeared on PC's.

Microsoft Office is basically a copy of the Apple Lisa "Office" done around 1982. Later on various pieces were made for MacOS in 1984 or so. Windows 3.0 was essentially a copy of the Mac or even Lisa OS complete with Copy, Cut, Past, etc. Anyway, Steve Jobs got the inspiration from the Xerox PARC work. Anybody who has been around may correct me on my fading memory.

Fair enough but there are other options for something like Office. Google Docs, Zoho, and Microsoft OWA are all viable solutions. Microsoft already said they're working on Chrome support which shouldn't be too hard since they've already tested for Safari. The average person doesn't even use 99% of the features anywhere though there will be that initial nervousness from moving to something that you're not accustomed to.

It's easy to be skeptical about Chrome since it's vaporware. But Google has done a decent enough job with the products they've come out with. They may not be Mac caliber but it is as good as, if not better, than Windows products and free as well.

When we say "viable" we mean that technically, they can replace some of the most used functionality.

That's true. but it also means that people will want to use these apps instead. That's something different, and I doubt it.

Both are more than viable, they're complete replacements, one is free.

But how much marketshare have they taken? Almost 0%. Why? Because they're really NOT viable, because people don't want them. They want the real thing, even if it costs far more. And if not that, then they can get Student/Teacher edition for much less.

It's questionable as to whether Google's apps are really viable.

I haven't seen anything from MS saying that they're working on support for Chrome. I'd be very surprised if they did. Why help Chrome, which won't be out for at least a year anyway?

Microsoft Office is basically a copy of the Apple Lisa "Office" done around 1982. Later on various pieces were made for MacOS in 1984 or so. Windows 3.0 was essentially a copy of the Mac or even Lisa OS complete with Copy, Cut, Past, etc. Anyway, Steve Jobs got the inspiration from the Xerox PARC work. Anybody who has been around may correct me on my fading memory.

I don't know, that sounds kind of squirrelly.

From what I remember, Apple paid MS to write Word, Excel, and some other programs as well as Basic. Later MS wrote Powerpoint for Apple.

id·i·ot (ĭd'ē-ət)
noun
1.\tan utterly foolish or senseless person.
2.\tPsychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

Synonyms:
1. fool, half-wit; imbecile; dolt, dunce, numskull. *
2. Normally, Steve Balmer's name would be here next to 2 but the publishers have decided it would be too insulting to the previous definitions for them to be in the same definition.

Both are more than viable, they're complete replacements, one is free.

But how much marketshare have they taken? Almost 0%. Why? Because they're really NOT viable, because people don't want them. They want the real thing, even if it costs far more. And if not that, then they can get Student/Teacher edition for much less.

It's questionable as to whether Google's apps are really viable.

I haven't seen anything from MS saying that they're working on support for Chrome. I'd be very surprised if they did. Why help Chrome, which won't be out for at least a year anyway?

I agree on some things but disagree on others. I also question the viability of something like Google Docs considering that very few people actually use it. The reason Star Office never took off is because Office was always an alternative if you used Windows. The netbook craze proved that people would be willing to move away from Windows and Office. The reason people returned netbooks running Linux was because the OS was lack of driver support and the instability of the OS. Google could alleviate both of those problems because they are Google.

A Google netbook could cost anywhere from $50-$100 less than a Windows counterpart and wouldn't have to deal with the crippling of features by Microsoft. In a bad economy people will always give that a second look especially if it has the Google brand on it. This is not even considering the savings from the $150 Office student version. That alone is the price of two netbooks.

I admit I made a mistake about Chrome. I was talking about the browser and not the OS. Microsoft would have to make Silverlight for Chrome OS for OWC to work.